THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, July 21, 1994 TAG: 9407210016
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 57 lines
Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va., is backpeddling from the apparent endorsement he gave in Saturday night's Senate campaign debate to the idea of the Food and Drug Administration regulating nicotine as a drug. Robb says his response to the question was misunderstood. From a reading of it, it's not hard to see why.
The question was: ``Given that scientific evidence supports the claim that nicotine is indeed an addictive drug, would you support FDA regulation of nicotine?''
Republican candidate Oliver North and independents J. Marshall Coleman and L. Douglas Wilder all answered that they would oppose such regulation. Here is what Sen. Robb said:
``I have been following the debate, and although I must confess to you I have not attempted to come to a final conclusion, I am willing to consider putting nicotine under the FDA if the case can be made. I just don't have enough background information to make a final decision on that. If I had to make one tonight, I would say yes.
``But I really have not studied that aspect of the question. I do not sit on that committee, so I have not watched the debate as it has taken place - and I'm not sure it has taken place in the depth that I would like to see it, and I want to reserve judgment.''
Oh.
Sen. Robb said he was answering the question in the context of nicotine already having been declared a drug, but that looks like a dodge. His convolutedly non-committal answer seems designed to assure the anti-smoking militants that he will not lie down in front of their prohibitionist steamroller, while at the same time not alienating the farmers and workers who constitute one of the state's largest private employers.
At least one hopes that's the reason, because the alternative is too incredible to contemplate. Can it really be true that Sen. Robb has ``not watched the debate as it has taken place?'' You mean all spring long, when California Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman was browbeating tobacco executives and Janet Reno was darkly hinting the executives might do some jail time because she suspected they weren't telling the truth about tobacco, Sen. Robb never got up to speed on an issue of such importance to his state?
The smoking issue also involves some pretty basic questions about personal freedom. Smoking might not be good for you, but many people find it pleasurable, weigh the risks and smoke anyway. The same with those who eat fatty foods. (See editorial below.) Freedom means being able to choose. Has Sen. Robb not thought about any of these issues, either?
It's nice to see that at least three of the candidates have rejected one of the increasingly extreme positions of the anti-smoking lobby. As for the fourth, it looks as if he's blowing smoke in our eyes. by CNB